Talk:List of electric aircraft

List format
Would it be useful to include a column for the power system, so that it can be made sortable? The article on Electric aircraft currently lists: The ultracapacitor is really part of a solar or man-powered hybrid system, but the rest look a good starter for discussion.
 * Battery
 * Power cable
 * Solar
 * Ultracapacitor
 * Fuel cell
 * Microwave beam

It would be nice to get the format settled before reformatting the rest of the table.

What does anybody think? &mdash; Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 11:24, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
 * In some cases we have details on the motor and such, so sure, why not? - Ahunt (talk) 14:24, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
 * On the whole I think that details should be kept minimal - no power ratings or type of battery, for example. If these are unusually significant they can be added to the notes. One possible approach might be a new Source column added to the default (general) format, inserted say like this:
 * | Type | Country | Class | Source | Role | Date | Status | Notes |
 * Some comments/questions arising:
 * For sortability, allowed Source values to be limited to: Battery, Cable, Solar, Fuel cell, Microwave, Hybrid.
 * Is there a better title than "Source"? Would say "Power", "Mode", "System" or something else be neater?
 * Microwave has only been tried on the odd small experimental model. Is this genuinely notable enough to list or should it be dropped?
 * These detail options can easily be changed at a later date. The main thing to get right now is how many columns to insert and where. I think one is quite enough, have I put it in the right place?
 * &mdash; Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 13:04, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
 * "Source" is a bit vague in this context, so I think "power" would be a bit more specific. Microwave should be mentioned where used, just for its unusualness. It could go under "power". Otherwise I think your column headings look fine for now. - Ahunt (talk) 13:36, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Not sure about "power", which eventually comes from the motor; what about "current source" - all the starred items supply current? The order looks right. In this context does "hybrid" = "solar + battery"?TSRL (talk) 15:26, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Okay, if that makes the most sense, given the range of possibilities that can be entered. - Ahunt (talk) 15:42, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
 * An indication of the installed engine power would be quite relevant, to me, as would be indications of weight, speed, endurance. Lists are useful for comparisons, so the things to be compared must be there. OTOH I am not happy with the very extensive "notes" on some of the aircraft, these ought to go in articles describing the individual aeroplane. Jan olieslagers (talk) 16:36, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
 * And if may be allowed a bit of nitpicking, a battery is never a source of power, it is only a storage medium. You don't call a fuel tank a power source, do you? The suggested "current source" seems more appropriate, though it leaves some room for confusion. Photovoltaics and fuel cells OTOH do be sources of electrical power. Jan olieslagers (talk) 16:36, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
 * If you want to properly nitpick, it should be "energy source" rather than "power source": a tank of petrol is a source of energy for an internal combustion motor, just as a battery is a source of energy for an electric motor.--Rdpoor (talk) 15:35, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Well, for this once I (unconsciously) concurred with US'an parlance, I quite didn't expect any headwind. But you are of course totally right. Thanks indeed! Jan olieslagers (talk) 17:03, 28 August 2020 (UTC)


 * In aviation, whether or not a plane is certified for commercial use is an important milestone. Perhaps that could be its own column, or (less likely) become one of the possible values for the status column.--Rdpoor (talk) 15:29, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
 * There is something to that, BUT on the one hand, I cannot imagine any electric-powered plane to be viable for commercial use on the short or even mid term, as yet all must be considered either recreational or otherwise prototypes/experimentals; and on the other hand certification is not a universal matter, it is administered by national (or sometimes supra-national) authorities. That would over-complicate the list. So: thanks for thinking of it; but no, I do not think this is a good idea. Jan olieslagers (talk) 15:44, 28 August 2020 (UTC)


 * The list is already quite long, so I suggest dividing into sections: Planes, non-planes, unmanned. Planes could later be divided into Prototype and Production as lists grow unmanageable. Beyond Date, Country, Status and Refs, each list should contain Power (sustained kW), Energy (kWh), Main energy source(s), maybe weight. For planes, wing span. For non-planes; lift type, propulsion type. There is little need for Class and Role, as aircraft are either Prototypes (Experimental) or Production (school/leisure). There will be border cases due to complexity. The electric Unmanned aerial vehicle category is close to Radio-controlled aircraft.


 * Yes, move text content from list to articles to reduce list size - each entry should be one line only.


 * Most modern electric aircraft contain batteries to some degree regardless of energy source, making the "hybrid" type less meaningful. Hydrogen for fuel cells is an energy carrier as defined by ISO 13600, like other practical fuels and batteries. TGCP (talk) 20:48, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
 * The whole point of a list with sortable columns such as this one is that the kind of subdivision you ask for can be done with a single click, and much more flexibly.
 * "Hybrid" is intended to mean a mixed-powerplant type in the same sense as any other hybrid vehicle.
 * &mdash; Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 16:45, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
 * A click from Contents to each list is the fastest way to point readers to a category. A single long list is a mess and not concise. The vast majority of entries are planes, making a Class column almost useless and a waste of space - it's nearly empty now. It is more efficient to simply have them in a list of their own, selectable from Contents.
 * Hybrid powerplants is more meaningful than the "source" discussion above, yes. I count 5 hybrid entries (3 human, 2 piston? (Lazair and Volta)), making the Hybrid column also mostly empty.
 * Projects like ACHEON should be in their own list until they fly, using the Wright-criteria of independent, sustained, controlled flight. TGCP (talk) 20:55, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I mistook the Hybrid as a column, not a Source entry. TGCP (talk) 21:07, 2 January 2017 (UTC)


 * We talk of "solar powered", "battery powered", "mains powered", etc. so I think that Ahunt is right about that. Power source is a good option to meet most comments made. I'll go with that to start with and see how it goes for a while. If people find comprehensive sortable lists unworkable then the WP:AVILIST talk page is the place to take that up, not here. &mdash; Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 12:56, 3 January 2017 (UTC)


 * When listing the Energy Source choices, we could write them by order of connection. Internal: Battery, Ultracapacitor, Hybrid, Fuel cell. External: Solar, Microwave, Cable. If Amazon's carrier succeeds, other choices may become more notable :-D TGCP (talk) 21:25, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

Solar-Powered/Electric
Not seen this list before but I expected to see a list of electric aircraft to include electric-powered gliders and such-like not solar-powered aircraft which although is strictly electric is not what I expected here - perhaps split the solar powered aircraft into a different list so as not to confuse me! MilborneOne (talk) 14:58, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I forked the list from the article on electric aircraft, which it dominated. The idea is that it should include all kinds of electric-powered aircraft. A new Power or similar column to distinguish them is being discussed above here. The column would be sortable, so at a click you could separate out the two sub-lists you mention. I am not sure why anyone would then want a separate list page for solar-only. &mdash; Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 16:52, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Probably just me! when you mention electric aircraft I think of something like the "Alisport Silent Club" rather than the QineteQ Zephyr which I would think of as Solar-powered and not electric. I will wait and see how it looks once you organise the table. MilborneOne (talk) 17:45, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

Piloted or remotely flown
Is the intention to include only aircraft that are conventionally flown, with pilot onboard, or should it include autonomous or ground-controlled aircraft? I'd be inclined to stick to the former, otherwise the list will grow enormously, with drones and many r/c or free-flight models.TSRL (talk) 20:35, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
 * The Class column traditionally allows a UAV class, I see no reason to differ here. Drones must obey the same notability rules as other aircraft, which rules out toys and a lot of other rubbish. If things do eventually get out of hand, then the traditional article fork offers. &mdash; Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 20:47, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

Motor gliders
"Motor glider" is not a standard class identified at WP:AVILIST. I have found it useful here, so unless anybody provides consensus to the contrary, I shall assume that it is OK to keep using it here. &mdash; Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 23:03, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I would say it is a useful class of aircraft! - Ahunt (talk) 16:32, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
 * WP:AVILIST does state that motor-gliders are to be included in the "glider" class; and the only gliders with electric primary power are motor gliders. So I think the point is a bit moot, but I find it very much ok to explicitly mention motor gliders. Keep up the good work! Jan olieslagers (talk) 16:39, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

Lilium
Made Lilium Aviation a redirect pointing here as I did not want to take the risk of creating a full page for something that may or may not turn out to be notable. Please feel free to insert all appropriate caveats, but please don't just blank mention of it without fixing the redirect situation. --dab (𒁳) 19:48, 21 April 2017 (UTC)


 * I wasnt aware of a redirect when I removed the entry, have you a reliable source that the two-seat prototype has actually flown? None of the released video show it flying only a scale model. MilborneOne (talk) 19:54, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on List of electric aircraft. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.apame.eu/AA%20Projects.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120529151915/http://www.fai.org/record-microlights to http://www.fai.org/record-microlights
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.vectorsite.net/twuav_12.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150706124145/http://www.schempp-hirth.com/index.php?id=126&L=1&tx_ttnews%5Btt_news%5D=373&tx_ttnews%5BbackPid%5D=87&cHash=8a5d51d766 to http://www.schempp-hirth.com/index.php?id=126&L=1&tx_ttnews%5Btt_news%5D=373&tx_ttnews%5BbackPid%5D=87&cHash=8a5d51d766
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.evworld.com/article.cfm?storyid=709

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 09:35, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 9 external links on List of electric aircraft. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110628112136/http://solarimpulse.com/common/documents/challenge_history.php?lang=en&group=challenge to http://solarimpulse.com/common/documents/challenge_history.php?lang=en&group=challenge
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090420110802/http://www.alisport.com/eu/eng/silent_b.htm to http://www.alisport.com/eu/eng/silent_b.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060812184635/http://www.lange-flugzeugbau.com/htm/english/news/news.html to http://www.lange-flugzeugbau.com/htm/english/news/news.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130719081728/http://dspace.mit.edu/bitstream/handle/1721.1/15247/13290538.pdf?...1 to http://dspace.mit.edu/bitstream/handle/1721.1/15247/13290538.pdf?...1
 * Added archive https://archive.is/20040406002854/http://www.inventsky.net/invent_text/0481.asp to http://www.inventsky.net/invent_text/0481.asp
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120201032732/http://www.asl.ethz.ch/research/asl/skysailor/History_of_Solar_Flight.pdf to http://www.asl.ethz.ch/research/asl/skysailor/History_of_Solar_Flight.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100726163226/http://www.buch-der-synergie.de/c_neu_html/c_11_15_mobile_anwendungen_elektroflugzeuge_1.htm to http://www.buch-der-synergie.de/c_neu_html/c_11_15_mobile_anwendungen_elektroflugzeuge_1.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110707180738/http://www.astroflight.com/pdfs/SolarHistory.pdf to http://www.astroflight.com/pdfs/SolarHistory.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110727162444/http://www.ifb.uni-stuttgart.de/en/forschung/flugzeugentwurf/icare to http://www.ifb.uni-stuttgart.de/en/forschung/flugzeugentwurf/icare

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 03:18, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

New inclusions to be considered
As an employee of Pipistrel company I would like to suggest new inclusions to the list:

-in March 2015 Pipistrel unveiled the proof-of-concept Pipistrel WATTsUP 2-seat electric trainer. It was just a prototype, never made it to the serial production, but unique in being developed as a trainer

-the improved version, Pipistrel Alpha Electro is now in serial production

-the HY4 prototype: in September 2016 Pipistrel accomplished the first public flight with the Hy4, a four-seat passenger aircraft powered by a zero-emission hydrogen fuel cell system producing electricity to power its 80-kilowatt motor. I'm not sure if this qualifies because it is technically a hybrid.

If it does, then another aircraft should be considered:

-Panthera Hybrid proof of concept. On 9th February 2016 as a part of the project HYPSTAIR, the world's most powerful hybrid electric powertrain for aviation to date was started. Pipistrel designed a four seat aircraft, the Panthera, which can be alternatively equipped with three different propulsion types: piston engine, electric motor or hybrid powertrain. The Hypstair project is the proof of concept of the third one.

Ymmo (talk) 08:42, 7 January 2019 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your cautious approach! Much better to first ask, and perhaps discuss, than to bluntly add your hard work only to see it reverted. My idea (without any authority except a bit of experience) is that first the articles should be created, then reference to the article can be added to the list. You can create the articles for the types deemed relevant, however be warned that, as a Pipistrel employee, you will be watched very carefully - there have been too many cases of companies advertising their product here, or people creating articles by copy/pasting from commercial publications. If you go about it carefully, your additions could be very valuable! Jan olieslagers (talk) 11:30, 7 January 2019 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your advice. Most of the articles already exist: WATTsUP 2-seat electric trainer Pipistrel_WATTsUP, Pipistrel_Alpha_Trainer, HY4 is just in German, I don't know if this counts but it lists English sources. Panthera Hybrid and Panthera Electro are mentioned in the article about Pipistrel_Panthera (which is outdated and will need changes). All apart from Alpha Electro are already mentioned also in the original article Electric_aircraft, just not on the list. Ymmo (talk) 09:28, 8 January 2019 (UTC)


 * Okay I have linked Pipistrel Alpha Electro and added Pipistrel Velis Electro and Pipistrel WATTsUP. - Ahunt (talk) 15:41, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

add another plane?
Vancouver's Harbour Air and Seattle's MagniX modified a De_Havilland_Canada_DHC-2_Beaver. It is mentioned in https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/electric-seaplane-float-plane-test-flight-harbour-air-1.5390816 and in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electric_aircraft#Developments Thanks Mang (talk) 13:49, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

Work by Heart Aerospace must be uncluded
The ES-19 and ES-30 projects are not listed. They should be. 45.139.212.188 (talk) 23:48, 21 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Do you have a reference for that? See WP:V. - Ahunt (talk) 23:54, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

Role and Development type
These are currently separate columns. There is no valid reason to include arbitrary stats such as the number of seats in a list like this. Is there any valid reason not to do what the standard layouts do, and merge these columns back together under "Role", as they used to be? &mdash; Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 12:48, 7 July 2023 (UTC)
 * I don't understand this comment, nobody added number of seats. Role and development type (or similar definition) seem to me completely different things: one is the type of aircraft, such as airliner, trainer, etc. The other is the type of development for this type of aircraft: is it n experimental craft? Is it a commercial airplane? Is it a technology demonstrator? etc. Of course I am open to restructure the whole table, but without this information it would be hard to tell what we are talking about without already knowing about the aircraft. Also naming the first column type is misleading because these are almost all one-off planes (in the infobox aircraft the parameter type is not needed for unique aircraft). --Ita140188 (talk) 14:29, 7 July 2023 (UTC)
 * So. Firstly, if you check the Role column you will see at least five entries for the number of seats: somebody added them! Second, WP:AVILIST gives guidance on suitable columns and what to put in them. "Development type" is not a recognised characteristic in WP:RS either, and much of what you describe for it is more usually ascribed to either the Role or the Status. For example "Experimental" is a long-established role. "Commercial" is one of a series of major groups of role, typically including General, Military and Experimental. However the consensus at WP:AVILIST is to use more specific terms such Transport or Utility. Lastly, all aircraft types begin with a first prototype, and many end there. Again, there is consensus at WP:AVILIST for this usage and you will find it commonly in WP:RS, such as in trade directories. These issues have long been thrashed out over many lists of aircraft and there is no reason to overturn consensus here. &mdash; Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 16:29, 7 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Thank you for posting WP:AVILIST, that clarified some points. I still don't understand how experimental and (for example) fighter can be in the same category. What if an aircraft is an experimental fighter? Or an experimental transport aircraft? Or an experimental military transport aircraft? I don't see how these are mutually exclusive. One is the scope of the project, the other is the role of the aircraft (its purpose). But if there is consensus on this I guess this is not the right place to change it. However I propose to change this article to adhere to these standards at least, since as it is now it's extremely confusing. As an example, I came here to understand what is the status of electric commercial passenger aircraft, and it's practically impossible to understand from this list. I imagine most viewers that don't already know about the topic would be in the same situation. Also being a list of electric aircraft, the standard headers seem inadequate since one the most important information for this list would be the energy source (battery, fuel cells, etc.) Ita140188 (talk) 09:53, 9 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Which of course is why this list already includes a column for the power source. &mdash; Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 14:18, 9 July 2023 (UTC)
 * My comment was to highlight the need to have a custom header for this article anyway that does not adhere to AVILIST columns, no matter what is the consensus for the general case (also related to the next topic in this talk page) Ita140188 (talk) 07:36, 10 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Yes. That is exactly what we already have. It is what the "nonstandard" attribute is for. Why do you persist in asserting the need for it? &mdash; Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 07:40, 10 July 2023 (UTC)
 * On the "experimental fighter" question, the usual approach depends on whether the type is intended for production. If it is then it is a fighter with the status of prototype, if it is not then it is an experimental type. &mdash; Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 15:28, 9 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Anyway, I have now merged than back to our standard consensus arrangement. &mdash; Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 15:28, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

heading template
avilisthead is widely used for lists of aircraft types. A recent edit comment to this article says that "it makes it impossible to edit the table in visual mode." This is not an issue with this article but with the template. It should not be withdrawn from individual articles unless and until a consensus is reached to withdraw it altogether. However we have an edit warrior insisting on deleting it here, and hence also removing this list from the associated maintenance category. Is there any justification to treat this article as a special case? &mdash; Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 16:38, 7 July 2023 (UTC)


 * No, I don't see any reason to do away with this or to have this one article formatted differently than the other aviation lists. Visual editor not working right is not a good reason to drop this template. Visual editor doesn't work right on most pages, which is why few serious editors here use it. - Ahunt (talk) 21:19, 7 July 2023 (UTC)


 * My argument was that the way is used here, it does not add anything beside adding the article to a maintenance category. Therefore why keep it? I think there should be a good reason before we block the use of visual edit (especially for an enormous table which is difficult to edit in wikicode), and I don't see any good reason here since the header is custom anyway (has always been, not my change). --Ita140188 (talk) 09:41, 9 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Why keep it? Because it automatically adds the article to the maintenance category! That is what the maintenance category is for. Again, you are arguing about the need for this category and not anything particular to this article. This is not the place to do that. &mdash; Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 07:45, 10 July 2023 (UTC)
 * I am arguing for letting editors use the visual editor. It may not be important for you but it can be very useful for others. We can add the category manually if that's important to keep. Ita140188 (talk) 09:36, 10 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Template functionality was around long before VE came along, and VE still cannot handle various kinds of wikitext stuff. It is a bolt-on aid, not a God. You should first read WP:VE, especially the section on its limitations. If you still think something is not right, then you might want to open a New Bug Report for VisualEditor. &mdash; Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 10:14, 10 July 2023 (UTC)